On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Ryan Ollos <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Joe Dreimann < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> No objection to that. >> >> Two questions: >> 1) Was it the error report that got the user to think it is a Trac >> problem? Do we need to amend this? >> > > I suspect most users don't look very closely at the content of the error > report. The Internal Error page has a link for opening an issue on > trac.edgewall.org, which populates the ticket description with the user's > Trac configuration. The user only has to click two buttons to create a > ticket on trac.edgewall.org. I suspect that in most cases, the user > doesn't carefully consider where the ticket should be reported, but just > clicks the two buttons to create a ticket. However, we can change where > that ticket is created with a small change to the Trac source. > > [image: Inline image 1] > > > > >> 2) Should we encourage people using bloodhound to raise all issues to us >> (incl likely Trac ones)? >> > > There is some relevant discussion about that in [1]. It appears to be > possible to change where the `Create` button direct to. I tried modifying > the `default_tracker` variable [2], and it appears to work as advertized. > In the case that the reporter has an account on > issues.apache.org/bloodhound and is already logged-in, the ticket would > be easily created in the Bloodhound issue tracker. If the user is not > logged-in to i.a.o/bloodhound, they land on the login page, however even > after logging-in they are not redirected to the /newticket page with a > populated form. That may just be a separate issue we need to address to > make the error reporting process go more smoothly. > > After changing the `default_tracker` variable, there may still be some > cases that the `Create` button causes issues to be reported to trac-hacks > [3]. > > >> I would say yes to the second one because so far we've always kept >> tickets like that open as a reference and raised one upstream. For users >> that makes our site a single point of contact, and we know what it is >> upstream that affects them. >> >> Cheers, >> Joe >> > > That sounds good to me as well. The argument for single point of contact > seems like a good one. > > [1] http://trac.edgewall.org/ticket/10898 > [2] > http://trac.edgewall.org/browser/tags/trac-1.0.1/trac/web/main.py?marks=55-58#L53 > [3] > http://trac.edgewall.org/browser/tags/trac-1.0.1/trac/web/main.py?marks=554#L546 > A comment in t.e.o #11147 also suggests setting [project] admin_trac_url to point to the Bloodhound issues tracker. http://trac.edgewall.org/wiki/TracIni#project-section
